9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 672 - SC - FEMAViolation of provisions under FCRA, 1976 - foreign contribution received by the respondent-petitioner - HC quashed the FIR - HELD THAT - The impugned order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. In a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court has recorded findings on several disputed facts and allowed the petition. Defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciating the evidence during trial. The very fact that the High Court, in this case, went into the most minute details, on the allegtions made by the appellant-C.B.I., and the defence put-forth by the respondent, led us to a conclusion that the High Court has exceeded its power, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The assessment made by the High Court at this stage, when the matter has been taken cognizance by the Competent Court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for. The High Court has proceeded on the premise that the appellant has admitted the receipt of foreign contribution from his father Mr. Vipin Khanna, who is an Indian passport holder. Infact, it is not so. It is a case of the appellant-CBI, that the foreign contributions were received by the respondent from different entities in the foreign country, without permission from the Government. On the other hand, the case of the respondent, in defence, is that he has received such funds from his father Mr. Vipin Khanna. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of FIR, charge sheet, and orders by lower courts. 2. Jurisdictional error in taking cognizance under incorrect provisions. 3. Sufficiency of material to frame charges. 4. Compounding of the offense under the FCRA, 2010. 5. Admissibility of defense claims regarding the source of foreign contributions. Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of FIR, Charge Sheet, and Orders by Lower Courts: The respondent-petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. RC-AC-1-2007-A-0003, the charge sheet dated 13.12.2010, and the order dated 05.07.2011 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), which took cognizance under Section 35 read with Section 3 of the FCRA, 2010. The High Court quashed the FIR and all proceedings emanating from it, stating that the material placed on record was insufficient to frame a charge. The Supreme Court found that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by making detailed assessments of disputed facts, which should be tested during the trial. 2. Jurisdictional Error in Taking Cognizance Under Incorrect Provisions: The Revisional Court substituted the ACMM's order, stating cognizance should be deemed under Section 23 read with Section 4 of the FCRA, 1976, as the offense was committed when the FCRA, 1976 was in force. The respondent argued that this order was passed without notice to him. The Supreme Court quashed the Revisional Court's order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration after issuing notice to the respondent. 3. Sufficiency of Material to Frame Charges: The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s finding that the material was insufficient to frame charges. It emphasized that the High Court overstepped by evaluating the evidence in detail at the pre-trial stage, which is inappropriate under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The correctness of the defense that the funds were gifts from the respondent's father should be determined during the trial. 4. Compounding of the Offense Under the FCRA, 2010: The respondent filed for compounding of the offense under Section 41 of the FCRA, 2010, which was rejected by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The High Court directed a fresh hearing, but no decision was taken. The Supreme Court noted that the benefit of Section 41 of the FCRA, 2010, is not available for offenses committed under the FCRA, 1976. 5. Admissibility of Defense Claims Regarding the Source of Foreign Contributions: The respondent claimed the funds were gifts from his father, an Indian passport holder, supported by statements from his father and entities like 'New Heaven Nominees'. The High Court accepted this defense, but the Supreme Court found this premature. The burden of proof lies on the respondent to establish that the funds were from his father, which must be verified during the trial. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, allowing the trial court to proceed from the current stage and decide the case based on its merits. The Revisional Court’s order was quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration with proper notice to the respondent. The respondent was directed to appear before the Revisional Court within four weeks.
|
